1. No category

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
FAST C ONVOLUTIONAL N ETS W ITH fbfft :
A GPU P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
arXiv:1412.7580v2 [cs.LG] 30 Dec 2014
Nicolas Vasilache, Jeff Johnson, Michael Mathieu,
Soumith Chintala, Serkan Piantino & Yann LeCun
Facebook AI Research
770 Broadway, New York, NY 10003, USA
{ntv,jhj,myrhev,soumith,spiantino,yann}@fb.com
A BSTRACT
We examine the performance profile of Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)
training on the current generation of NVIDIA Graphics Processing Units (GPUs).
We introduce two new Fast Fourier Transform convolution implementations: one
based on NVIDIA’s cuFFT library, and another based on a Facebook authored
FFT implementation, fbfft, that provides significant speedups over cuFFT (over
1.5×) for whole CNNs. Both of these convolution implementations are available in open source, and are faster than NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation for
many common convolutional layers (up to 23.5× for a synthetic kernel configuration). We discuss different performance regimes of convolutions, comparing areas
where straightforward time domain convolutions outperform Fourier frequency
domain convolutions. Details on algorithmic applications of NVIDIA GPU hardware specifics in the implementation of fbfft are also provided.
1
I NTRODUCTION
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have emerged as one of the most promising techniques
to tackle large scale learning problems, whether in image and face recognition, audio and speech
processing or natural language understanding. A convolutional layer within these networks provides useful properties such as translation equivariance of activations. A limiting factor for use of
convolutional nets on large data sets was, until recently, their computational expense.
Krizhevsky et al. (2012) demonstrated that training of large CNNs with millions of weights and
massive data sets is tractable when graphics processing units (GPUs) are properly put to use. Since
then, renewed interest in CNNs insufflated a fresh breath in various frameworks and implementations, including Torch (Collobert et al. (2011a)), Theano (Bergstra et al. (2010)), cuda-convnet
(Krizhevsky (2014)) and Caffe (Jia et al. (2014)). Many of these frameworks are based around
codes for NVIDIA GPUs using CUDA (Garland et al. (2008)).
We discuss our contributions to convolution performance on these GPUs, namely using Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) implementations within the Torch framework. We summarize the theory behind
training convolutional layers both in the time and frequency domain in Section 2. We then detail
our implementations. The first is based on NVIDIA’s cuFFT and cuBLAS libraries (Section 3). We
evaluate our relative performance to NVIDIA’s cuDNN library (Chetlur et al. (2014)) on over 8, 000
different configurations (Section 4). We significantly outperform cuDNN and other time domain
convolution implementations for a wide range of problem sizes.
Our second implementation is motivated by limitations in using a black box library such as cuFFT in
our application domain, which we describe. In reaction, we implemented a from-scratch opensource implementation of batched 1-D FFT and batched 2-D FFT, called Facebook FFT (fbfft),
which achieves over 1.5× speedup over cuFFT for the sizes of interest in our application domain.
This implementation achieves GPU efficiency ratios of over 75% in certain cases. We describe an ongoing effort to further improve the performance of our solution based on algorithmic tiling (Section
6) before we conclude. Our implementation is released as part of the fbcuda and fbcunn opensource libraries at http://github.com/facebook.
1
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
2
C ONVOLUTION
Discrete convolution and cross-correlation are used in CNNs. We quickly summarize these and their
implementation, with a formulation mirroring Mathieu et al. (2013). Forward propagation (fprop)
inputs are a set f of input feature planes xi , i ∈ f . These are cross-correlated1 with f ′ × f different
filter kernel weights w(j,i) , j ∈ f ′ , i ∈ f , producing output feature planes yj , j ∈ f ′ . Each input
and output feature can be part of a minibatch S, so we have x(s,i) and y(s,j) , i ∈ f, j ∈ f ′ , s ∈ S:
y(s,j) =
X
x(s,i) ⋆ w(j,i)
i∈f
The feature planes f are reduced (summed) pointwise. For back-propagation (bprop), the gradient
of the loss with respect to outputs are convolved with the kernels:
X ∂L
∂L
=
∗ w(j,i)
∂x(s,i)
∂y(s,j)
′
j∈f
Reduction is over f ′ here. Finally, the kernel weights are updated using the gradient of the loss with
respect to the weights (accGrad):
X ∂L
∂L
=
⋆ x(s,i)
∂w(j,i)
∂y(s,j)
s∈S
Reduction is over S here. For purposes of this paper, we use set symbols interchangeably to refer to
their size: each input plane is a 2-D matrix of size h × w, and each filter kernel is a 2-D matrix of
size kh × kw 2 . The output planes y(s,i) are of size (h − kh + 1) × (w − kw + 1), and implement
valid-only convolution, as per MATLAB terminology. Input zero padding and input mirror padding
around the margins of the input (ph , pw ) can be optionally added.3
A popular convolution implementation is to unroll the data until the computation is in the form of a
large matrix multiplication (Chellapilla et al. (2006)). This is the strategy followed by many implementors, since matrix multiplication is a well-tuned linear algebra primitive available on virtually
any platform. While it is possible to provide instances of direct calculation that are faster than matrix
unrolling (e.g., for large S, Krizhevsky (2014)), it is challenging to provide an implementation that
is faster for more than just a small subset of possible convolution problems.
Introducing strides in this form of convolution (i.e., performing the convolution at every dh , dw -th
offset) is a popular way to reduce the computational cost at the expense of precision. The memory
accesses required are very similar but with fewer reuse opportunities. On the other hand, by the
convolution theorem, a convolution of two discrete signals can be performed with lower asymptotic
complexity by performing the multiplication in the frequency domain. Applied to the forward pass,
it becomes:
y(s,j) =
X
i∈f
x(s,i) ⋆ w(j,i) =
X
i∈f
F −1 F (x(s,i) ) ◦ F (w(j,i) )∗
where ∗ denotes complex conjugation and ◦ is the pointwise product. The discrete Fourier basis
used is the largest of the two components convolved and the output.4 Linearity of the DFT allows
one to perform the sum above in the Fourier domain if desired. Applying the FFT then yields
a O(Sf f ′ n2 + (Sf + f f ′ + Sf ′ )n2 log n) procedure in lieu of the original O(Sf f ′ n2 k 2 ), n =
h = w, k = kh = kw . Similar transformations apply for the other two passes. We call this
a frequency domain convolution, in contrast to time domain convolution via direct computation.
1
Torch practice is that the forward pass is cross-correlation, hence the ⋆.
2-D can be extended to n-D, n ≥ 1.
3
Input size (h + ph ) × (w + pw ), output size (h + ph − kh + 1) × (w + pw − kw + 1).
4
(h × w)-dimensional or even bigger for performance (Section 3.2).
2
2
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
Strided convolutions via FFT are impractical to implement, but the reduced computational cost of the
FFT alleviates their need, since convolution in the frequency domain is asymptotically independent
of kernel size. We do not consider those in this paper.
3
CU FFT
C ONVOLUTION I MPLEMENTATION
In this section we discuss implementation strategies using the NVIDIA cuFFT libraries and their
efficiency.
3.1
FFT C ONVOLUTION D ETAILS
We described the general formulation for the three types of convolutions in section 2. Here, we
borrow the Torch naming convention: input for x(s,i) ; weight for w(j,i) ; output for y(s,j) ; gradOutput
for ∂L/∂y(s,j) ; gradInput for ∂L/∂x(s,i) ; and gradWeight for ∂L/∂w(j,i) . All are stored as singleprecision floating point 4-D tensors in row-major layout, and are stored in memory using the socalled BDHW format. This is explicit in the expression InS×f ×h×w , with input image row data as
the innermost or most varying dimension.
Table 1 describes the in-order operations for FFT computation of the forward pass, using the
F F T 2D and IF F T 2D operators and Cgemm matrix multiplication. Similar implementations follow for the other two passes. The G prefix denotes gradients. The F suffix denotes C-valued frequency domain tensors; the rest are over R. The T suffix denotes transposed tensors.
Table 1: Implementation detail for forward propagation
INPUT
OUTPUT
F F T 2D
InFS×f ×(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)
F F T 2D
−−−−−→
InS×f ×h×w
2
W eif ′ ×f ×kh ×kw
−−−−−→
W eiFf ′ ×f ×(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)
InFS×f ×(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)
−−−−−−→
T rans2D
InF T(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)×S×f
W eiFf ′ ×f ×(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)
2
(
InF T(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)×S×f
2
∗
W eiF T(h+p
)×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)×f ′ ×f
−−−−−−→
T rans2D
W eiF T(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)×f ′ ×f
2
h
Cgemm
−−−→
2
2
2
OutF T(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)×S×f ′
2
2
OutF T(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)×S×f ′
2
OutFS×f ′ ×(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)
2
T rans2D
−−−−−−→
OutFS×f ′ ×(h+ph )×(⌊ w+pw ⌋+1)
IF F T 2D
OutS×f ′ ×(h−kh +1)×(w−kw +1)
−−−−−−→
2
Exact tensor dimensions are also given above. By taking advantage of the Hermitian symmetry
property of the 2-D DFT for R-valued inputs we only store about half the complex entries; the
w
remaining can be obtained by complex conjugation. This results in array sizes such as ⌊ w+p
2 ⌋ + 1.
We also perform interpolation by zero-padding, which serves multiple purposes. First, it is necessary
to handle boundary conditions.5 Second, it is required to interpolate all operands over the same
Fourier basis.6 Finally, padding has an impact on the FFT algorithm used in practice, as well as on
the floating point operation count of non-FFT operations (Section 3.2).
Following the conversion into frequency domain, we perform transpositions to prepare the tensors
for Cgemm matrix multiplication library calls. The transposition converts the BDHW layout into
HWBD. The transposition is currently out-of-place and implemented using the Cgeam routine; we
are also considering our own, in-place transposition routine. Cgemm library calls are performed
on transposed tensors in the frequency domain. Casting the operation as a Cgemm call allows us
to benefit from the heavily tuned cuBLAS routine. Eventually, we transpose the result back into
the BDHW format and perform a 2-D inverse FFT. At this point, the resulting real tensor, always
5
6
In this case, we typically have ph = ⌊ k2h ⌋ and pw = ⌊ k2w ⌋.
All tensors are zero-padded to (h + ph ) × (w + pw ) before F F T 2D.
3
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
(h + ph) × (w + pw ), is clipped to the appropriate final size: (h − kh + 1) × (w − kw + 1) for fprop,
h × w for bprop, kh × kw for accGrad.
3.2
CU FFT
D ESIGN S PACE
We now discuss implementation aspects we explored. Multiple factors influence the computational
efficiency of FFTs: transform size n, n’s prime factor decomposition, and whether batched or iterated single transforms are applied. In the deep learning domain, it is commonplace to deal with
small sizes, n 6= 2k . If n has undesirable properties, efficiency can drop by an order of magnitude.7
cuFFT implements FFTs with the ubiquitous Cooley-Tukey algorithm (Cooley & Tukey (1965))
which takes advantage of trigonometric equalities to recursively decompose and reuse computations. This is further discussed in the Supplement. Decomposition is built on specialized kernels of
fixed sizes which correspond to the prime factor decomposition of n. cuFFT implements specialized
building blocks for radix sizes 2, 3, 5, 7, and for sizes n where 4|n, it can use more efficient kernels
exploiting the conjugate symmetry property. When n does not admit a prime factor decomposition
using those radices only, the expensive Bluestein algorithm is used (Bluestein (1970)). Because our
results are used in the time domain, we can in fact zero-pad the image and kernel to perform the FFT
at any larger size that may be handled more efficiently. Exploiting more efficient, larger sizes should
be balanced against the extra cost introduced in the subsequent transposition and matrix multiplication steps. Table 4’s last case is one in which the best tradeoff is not easily guessed. cuFFT also has
batched mode optimizations when multiple FFTs of the same size are being performed.
3.3
CU BLAS
D ESIGN S PACE
The cuBLAS library also comes with different implementations for batched and single operation
modes. We had the choice between 3 implementation options:
• for larger batches over small matrices, the cublasCgemmBatched library call;
• for smaller batches over larger matrices, multiple cublasCgemm calls from the host;
• for intermediate batch and matrix sizes, devices of compute capability 3.5 and higher support dynamic parallelism which allows CUDA kernels to launch other kernels. This can be
beneficial for many launches over small matrices.
Note that the discussion above applies to multiplications after transposition. So the matrix size is
either S × f , S × f ′ or f × f ′ and the number of such matrices is h × w. Vendor libraries are usually
optimized for throughput and not latency, so we expect it to be more efficient for larger sizes along
critical dimensions (i.e., image size for the batch case and S × f , S × f ′ or f × f ′ for the multiple
kernel case). Due to build system limitations we were not able to experiment with the dynamic
parallelism strategy; we leave this for future work.
At the system level, we use CUDA streams and buffering of all CUDA resources and intermediate
buffers to remove synchronization points across convolutions. We are mindful of memory consumption; to address this we keep one single buffered copy of each type of tensor involved. This behavior
is tailored for a bulk synchronous execution of layers on a GPU and is not adapted for multiple
asynchronous convolutions on the same GPU. The buffers are automatically expanded as required
and reused as much as possible.
3.4
AUTOTUNING
We combine the above implementation with a simple autotuning strategy. We devise a strategy
selection mechanism that runs once for each problem size and caches the fastest strategy out of a
few dozen for later reuse. The autotuning strategy explores different possible Fourier basis sizes that
can be decomposed in powers for which cuFFT has an efficient implementation. In other words, for
an FFT dimension of size n, we explore the sizes i ∈ [n, 2⌊log2 n⌋] where i = 2a 3b 5c 7d . When the
input size is a power of 2, the search space is reduced to a single point. In addition to Fourier basis
sizes, we weigh in various cuBLAS calls and asynchronous modes.
7
http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cufft/index.html#accuracy-and-performance
4
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
4
4.1
CU FFT
C ONVOLUTION P ERFORMANCE
P ERFORMANCE
VERSUS CU DNN:
8,232 CONFIGURATIONS
We compare our cuFFT convolution results against NVIDIA’s cuDNN 1.0 library (Chetlur et al.
(2014)), which contains one of the fastest, general purpose convolution methods for the GPU, using
matrix unrolling. It has decent performance for many problem sizes thanks to heavy autotuning of
cuBLAS codes for different problems. It is a strong baseline for this reason.
Image CNNs to date have for the most part used square input images and filters, though rectangular filters are valid for other problems (notably text CNNs, Collobert et al. (2011b)). Thus, we
restrict ourselves to a 5-D problem domain {S, f, f ′ , n(= h = w), k(= kh = kw )}. Much of this
space is not used in practice. Some areas are perhaps over-emphasized (large S, small k) due to
current engineering concerns. We evaluate cuDNN vs cuFFT-based convolution for Table 2’s 8, 232
configurations.8
Table 2: Configuration elements evaluated
DIMENSION
SIZES EVALUATED
Minibatch size (S)
Input filters (f )
Output filters (f ′ )
Kernel h/w (k = kh = kw )
Output h/w (y = h − kh + 1 = w − kw + 1)
1, 16, 64, 128
1, 4, 16, 64, 96, 128, 256
1, 4, 16, 64, 96, 128, 256
3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64
Figures 1-6 are performance summaries of cuFFT convolution versus cuDNN on a NVIDIA Tesla
K40m, averaged across all three passes. The y-axis problem size corresponds to the minibatch size
multiplied by number of input and output planes (Sf f ′); each one of these is a pass reduction
dimension. Many possible combinations of S, f, f ′ may map to the same problem size. cuDNN performance varies to a greater degree than cuFFT across passes. This is due to the asymmetry of
convolution sizes in each pass, and the fact that a larger convolution kernel (as seen with gradient
accumulation) is essentially free in the Fourier domain. Averaging the three passes together provides a proxy for overall performance. The x-axis corresponds to output height/width. For deeper
layers in image CNNs, output size will decrease while f, f ′ will increase, so depth corresponds to
moving from the upper right to the lower left of the graph. Black areas in the chart are due to failed
cuFFT runs, due to memory pressure or undetermined potential cuFFT 6.5 issues.
FFT convolutions make large kernel sizes inexpensive, which make the performance of all three
passes roughly equal (Table 4). On the other hand, zero-padding kh × kw to h × w penalizes smaller
kernels compared to cuDNN. For 3 × 3 kernels (Figure 1), cuFFT performance is poor compared
to cuDNN. The overhead of multiple kernel launches, streaming memory in and out multiple times,
and zero-padding to the input size often outweigh the algorithmic advantage of FFT. However, for
the largest problem sizes, 3 × 3 convolution via FFT can still be advantageous, with top speed 1.84×
faster than cuDNN. 5 × 5 kernels (Figure 2) show an increasing dominance of the FFT strategy, with
top speed 5.33× faster. The tendency is confirmed for larger kernel sizes: at 13 × 13, maximum
speedup is 23.54× over cuDNN.
8
Parameterized on output rather than input size h, w because the implied h = y + kh − 1, w = y + kw − 1
will be valid for any choice of kh , kw .
5
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
1/16x
16x
1
96
512
4096
12288
32768
49152
65536
98304
131072
147456
196608
262144
393216
524288
589824
786432
1048576
1179648
1572864
2097152
3145728
4194304
8388608
output size
output size
64
32
16
problem size
64
32
16
8
64
32
16
8
4
2
1
64
32
16
8
problem size
Figure 4: 9 × 9 kernel (K40m)
1
96
512
4096
12288
32768
49152
65536
98304
131072
147456
196608
262144
393216
524288
589824
786432
1048576
1179648
1572864
2097152
3145728
4194304
8388608
4
1
96
512
4096
12288
32768
49152
65536
98304
131072
147456
196608
262144
393216
524288
589824
786432
1048576
1179648
1572864
2097152
3145728
4194304
8388608
output size
Figure 3: 7 × 7 kernel (K40m)
2
1
96
512
4096
12288
32768
49152
65536
98304
131072
147456
196608
262144
393216
524288
589824
786432
1048576
1179648
1572864
2097152
3145728
4194304
8388608
problem size
output size
4
2
1
64
32
16
8
4
2
problem size
Figure 2: 5 × 5 kernel (K40m)
1
96
512
4096
12288
32768
49152
65536
98304
131072
147456
196608
262144
393216
524288
589824
786432
1048576
1179648
1572864
2097152
3145728
4194304
8388608
1
8
output size
Figure 1: 3 × 3 kernel (K40m)
1
4
2
1
problem size
64
32
16
8
4
2
1
1
96
512
4096
12288
32768
49152
65536
98304
131072
147456
196608
262144
393216
524288
589824
786432
1048576
1179648
1572864
2097152
3145728
4194304
8388608
problem size
speedup
output size
Figure 5: 11 × 11 kernel (K40m)
Figure 6: 13 × 13 kernel (K40m)
6
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
4.2
CNN P ERFORMANCE
In table 3, we show performance for real CNNs, AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al. (2012)) and OverFeat
fast (Sermanet et al. (2014)), comparing against cuDNN and cuda-convnet2 (ccn2) kernels in Torch.
The first layer uses cuDNN for the cuFFT runs because it is strided, but all other layers use cuFFT.
The timings include all convolutional layers of the network.
Table 3: AlexNet and OverFeat fast performance (K40, ms)
NETWORK
KERNEL
FPROP
BPROP
ACCGRAD
TOTAL
AlexNet
cuFFT
cuDNN
ccn2
94.34
147.32
99.03
96.69
167.79
104.59
93.20
153.96
103.29
284.23
469.07
306.91
OverFeat fast
cuFFT
cuDNN
ccn2
375.65
459.06
433.11
460.48
634.26
398.87
397.85
508.02
450.82
1233.98
1601.35
1282.80
Table 4 shows the performance of the cuDNN and our cuFFT convolution implementation for some
representative layer sizes, assuming all the data is present on the GPU. Our speedups range from
1.4× to 14.5× over cuDNN. Unsurprisingly, larger h, w, smaller S, f, f ′ , kh , kw all contribute to
reduced efficiency with the FFT. More surprisingly, we experience noticeable speedups on small
3 × 3 kernels as long as the input tensor remains of small size. The optimal FFT sizes that autotuning finds are reported in columns 2 and 3; note L5 padding being found by the autotuner.
Column 7 has the trillion equivalent time-domain reductions per second (single-precision floating
point multiply-adds) achieved by our implementation on a NVIDIA Tesla K40m on CUDA 6.5.
This number represents the throughput a time-domain kernel needs to achieve in order to match our
implementation; it is computed as (Sf f ′ kh kw (h − kh + 1)(w − kw + 1))/time. This is a metric
to compare relative efficiency across problem and padding sizes. In the cases L2, L3 and L4, a time
domain convolution would need to exceed the K40m peak of 4.29 Tflop/sec in order to match our
throughput.
5
fbfft I MPLEMENTATION
This section presumes familiarity with GPU architecture. Refer to the Supplement for details.
When designing high-performance libraries, multiple objectives must be balanced against each
other: memory latency/bandwidth tradeoffs, maximizing locality without sacrificing too much parallelism, good instruction mix, register usage and mapping strategy of computation and data to
memories and compute elements. A key principle is to design a set of leaf kernels with well-tuned
in-register performance and reduce the larger problem to a combination of these kernels by data and
loop tiling (Irigoin & Triolet (1988)) and recursive decompositions (Gunnels et al. (2001)). Since
vendors have to sustain high performance for a large class of application domains, there exist parameter configurations for which a carefully tuned approach significantly outperforms vendor-tuned
libraries (Shin et al. (2010)). For common deep learning use, convolutional layers consist of many
batched small 2-D convolutions. These are tiny relative to DSP and HPC standards and put us in
a regime where (a) we fall outside of the highly tuned regime, (b) feature dimensions are often
smaller than GPU warp sizes and can often fit exclusively in registers rather than in shared memory
(SMEM), and (c) we are very sensitive to latencies. We determined that it is possible to obtain better
efficiency than the existing batched cuFFT mode for CNNs.
5.1
L IMITATIONS
OF CU FFT
Because the cuFFT library is a black box, zero-padding9 has to be explicitly embedded in the input
and output arrays. The consequence is that one may need to allocate a duplicate, larger memory
9
This is different from the FFTW compatibility padding mode for in-place transforms.
7
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
Table 4: Representative layer performance (S = 128, K40m)
LAYER
h + ph
L1
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L2
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L3
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L4
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L5
fprop
bprop
accGrad
Params:
128
128
128
Params:
64
64
64
Params:
32
32
32
Params:
16
16
16
Params:
13
13
13
w + pw
cuDNN
cuFFT
SPEEDUP
f = 3, f ′ = 96, h = w = 128, kh = kw = 11
128
125.11 ms 80.98 ms 1.54×
128
153.39 ms 66.49 ms 2.30×
128
155.07 ms 69.63 ms 2.22×
f = 64, f ′ = 64, h = w = 64, kh = kw = 9
64
354.83 ms 46.44 ms 7.64×
64
579.37 ms 46.25 ms 12.5×
64
416.34 ms 47.03 ms 8.85×
f = 128, f ′ = 128, h = w = 32, kh = kw = 9
32
130.89 ms 17.77 ms 7.36×
32
245.57 ms 16.97 ms 14.5×
32
154.96 ms 17.00 ms 9.29×
f = 128, f ′ = 128, h = w = 16, kh = kw = 7
16
15.13 ms
4.88 ms
3.10×
16
20.80 ms
4.71 ms
4.41×
16
18.17 ms
4.70 ms
3.86×
f = 384, f ′ = 384, h = w = 13, kh = kw = 3
14
39.82 ms
21.35 ms 1.86×
14
28.33 ms
20.22 ms 1.40×
14
47.84 ms
21.26 ms 2.25×
TRED/s
0.9
1.1
1.05
7.49
7.52
7.40
9.90
10.37
10.34
5.54
5.76
5.75
1.34
1.42
1.35
region (only once) and copy data from non-padded tensors to padded tensors. This memory consumption and spurious copies affect latency significantly. Instead, we devised an implementation for
batched 1-D FFT and 2-D FFT of sizes 2-256 and reaches up to 78% efficiency at 97.5% occupancy.
We also implemented an IFFT kernel based on our FFT kernel.
In our implementation we use clipping to conditionally load a value if reading within bounds or a
constant (0) otherwise. This is an approach used in automatic code generation tools such as Halide
(Ragan-Kelley et al. (2013)) and relies on aggressive if-conversion properties of the CUDA compiler.
It allows for more efficient control flow rather than using explicit loop prologues and epilogues. This
mechanism does not require any additional memory allocation and is zero-copy; this is particularly
desirable in the latency sensitive mode.
Additionally, since cuFFT and cuBLAS are closed source, it is impossible to take advantage of algorithmic simplifications that may be available. For instance, in the forward pass of our computation as
shown in Table 1, the result of the first cuFFT call is of the form S×f ×(h+ph)×(⌊(w+pw )/2⌋+1).
With fbfft we return it in the form S × f × (⌊(w + pw )/2⌋ + 1) × (h + ph ) where the two innermost data dimensions are transposed. This allows us to remove a full data transposition from each
of the FFT kernels. Another domain-specific optimization we have yet to explore is eliminating bit
reversal portions of the FFT and IFFT. This can be done by performing the FFT with decimation in
frequency (DIF) and the IFFT with decimation in time (DIT), discussed in the Supplement.
5.2
WARP - LEVEL 1-D FFT
AND
2-D FFT
FOR SIZE
n ≤ 32
For batched FFT of power of two sizes we view a single warp as a small distributed system with
lockstep collective communication capabilities and we program it in a bulk-synchronous fashion
(Valiant (1990)). We implement DIF and enforce the following invariants for the log2 n steps:
• each warp thread originally loads one real element of the input vector and locally computes
one complex twiddle factor (i.e. a root of unity);
• at each step, all warp threads exchange data with another thread in the warp in parallel and
produce a new value;
8
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
• then, all warp threads exchange twiddle factors with another thread in the warp in parallel,
and produce a new value.
The two bulk-synchronous exchanges can be written each with one warp-wide instruction. After
the log2 n steps, the FFT is computed and stored in a distributed and bit reversed manner within 1
register across a warp. For sizes n ≤ 32, bit reversal can be implemented with a single warp shuffle.
We either load twiddle factors from device memory or compute them with the sincosf function
only once, and subsequently swap them within registers. This greatly reduces the reliance on either
memory bandwidth or on the special functional unit at the expense of a few additional registers.
The decision between explicitly loading twiddle factors from device memory or computing them is
a tradeoff between arithmetic intensity and memory bandwidth. For sizes 16 and 32 the arithmetic
pipeline is the bottleneck. Loading twiddle factors from memory for these two special sizes results
in a performance increase of 15% and 20% respectively.
The discussion above applies to 1-D FFT and to each independent FFT within a larger 2-D FFT.
A n-D Fourier transform is separable and can be implemented with sets of multiple 1-D FFT with
transpositions between each of these sets. In 2-D FFT R-to-C, the first set comprises n FFTs and the
second set comprises n/2+1 FFTs by Hermitian symmetry. The extra 1 term in the quantity n/2+1
makes the computation ill-balanced and can bring down performance by lowering occupancy. We
chose to dimension our kernels to have size n×(n/2) and introduce additional control flow to handle
the border case. This results in 30% additional performance. We implement the transposition in
SMEM across warps following Ruetsch & Micikevicius (2009). Data is already resident in registers
so our main concerns are limiting SMEM usage to keep occupancy high, and limiting load/stores by
using vector instructions to avoid saturating the load-store unit (LSU).
5.3
1-D FFT
AND
2-D FFT
FOR SIZE
32 < n ≤ 256
With size 32 as our building block, we extend our strategy to larger sizes. We use the same single
warp approach to compute a full 1-D FFT. The main difference is that the computation is now distributed across multiple registers across threads in a warp (⌈n/32⌉ Fourier coefficients and twiddle
factors in registers per thread). Because we perform a full FFT per warp, a performance cross-over
where cuFFT wins happens after register usage limits occupancy too much. We outperform 1-D
cuFFT for n ≤ 256, with a hard register limit at n = 512 (128 and 256 similarly for 2-D FFT). This
is still well within our application domain. The following modifications handle multiple registers
per thread:
• Hermitian symmetry allows us to perform half the computation. There is a tradeoff between adding control-flow divergence and performing less work. At n ≥ 64, benefits from
reduced computations dominate divergence losses;
• we take advantage of trigonometric symmetries and twiddle factor distribution to compute
only a fraction of the roots of unity needed for each FFT, distributed with register to register
copies;
• twiddle factor re-balancing across a warp and across registers requires a different implementation. We managed to implement it fully within registers;
• bit reversal occurs across registers and across warps. The high-order bits represent the register while the low-order bits represent the warp. Without a sophisticated implementation,
this results in indirect addressing of registers which is costly. We implement a simple bit
reversal in SMEM, which is an occupancy bottleneck at n ≥ 256 for 1-D FFT.
In the 2-D FFT case, the intermediate transpose becomes significantly more expensive. We experimented with various strategies to keep occupancy high, including partial transpositions within a
warp to use minimal amounts of SMEM.
5.4
D ISCUSSION
We report the relative performance of our implementation fbfft compared to cuFFT for various
batch and input sizes of interest. The number of batches to consider depends on the dimension of
CNN layers as well as any multi-GPU parallelization strategy that may be involved. At typical sizes
9
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
of interest, fbfft is between 1.5× and 5× faster. We tried up to 4 million batches and at larger
sizes gains stabilize around 1.4× but efficiency goes down as more and more memory is used.
FBFFT-1D Speedup at various sizes and batches
4.5
3.5
FBFFT Speedup
3.0
8
16
32
64
128
256
4.0
3.5
FBIFFT Speedup
4.0
FBIFFT-1D Speedup at various sizes and batches
4.5
8
16
32
64
128
256
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
4
32
128
1024
4096
Number of batches
16384
65536
4
32
128
1024
4096
Number of batches
16384
65536
Figure 7: fbfft-1D FFT and IFFT (K40m, cuFFT 6.5 @ 1x)
FBFFT-2D Speedup at various sizes and batches
4.5
4.0
3.5
8
16
32
64
128
4.0
3.5
3.0
FBIFFT Speedup
FBFFT Speedup
3.0
FBIFFT-2D Speedup at various sizes and batches
4.5
8
16
32
64
128
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
4
32
128
1024
4096
Number of batches
16384
65536
4
32
128
1024
4096
Number of batches
16384
65536
Figure 8: fbfft-2D FFT and IFFT (K40m, cuFFT 6.5 @ 1x)
Figure 7 shows the performance in the 1-D case. These numbers do not exercise our implicit zerocopy padding, so we expect additional gains when we incorporate our FFT in the convolution. Our
implementation outperforms cuFFT for all cases of interest, more dramatically so for smaller batch
sizes. Small batch sizes also correspond to the latency sensitive regime in Figures 1-6 for which
the cuFFT based implementation performs quite worse than cuDNN. We achieve 78% efficiency at
97.5% occupancy for size 64 at batch size 16, 384, as reported by nvvp.
Figure 8 shows the performance in the 2-D case. Relative performance gains for sizes 64 are more
modest than in the 1-D case, even losing to cuFFT at size 128 and small batch sizes. The magnitude
of the relative gains at various batch sizes drops faster than in the 1-D case. Looking at the performance of the 32 × 32 FFT, we obtain 1.6× speedup over cuFFT at 1, 024 batches. The same ratio is
not obtained until 16, 384 batches in 1-D FFT.10 When coupled with the tiling strategy in Section 6,
we emphasize that the sizes of interest are actually 8-64, and depend on kh , kw but not input h, w.
Batch sizes can vary on the whole spectrum.
We interfaced fbfft into our convolution module and ran experiments with 3 × 3 kernels for the
3 different convolution passes over inputs of sizes x = h = w, x ∈ {13, 16, 27, 32, 57, 64}. For
problem size, we used p = S = f = f ′ , p ∈ {16, 32, 64, 128}. By swapping our FFT implementation we observed an overall mean speedup of 1.51× with standard deviation 0.21 and geometric
mean 1.49×. The minimum speedup was 1.21×, despite sometimes performing more computations
with fbfft which can only interpolate to a power of 2. These experiments exercise the zero-copy
10
This is not unexpected because these two computations perform the same number of flops when accounting
for Hermitian symmetry, plus the fact that the efficiency of cuFFT increases while fbfft remains high but
almost constant.
10
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
padding and lower memory footprints of fbfft compared to cuFFT but do not yet reflect additional
optimizations such as tiling and bit twiddling elision.
6
F UTURE WORK
fbfft provides the most gains over cuFFT at sizes 8-64. A tiling strategy for the input can be used
to exploit this advantage. When the kernel is significantly smaller than the input, we can decompose
a large convolution into several smaller ones. For simplicity, we consider 1D convolution on a
single input plane, as it can trivially be extended. Let x be an input of size n, c a kernel of size w and
y = x ⋆ c. We write x[i,j] for the vector formed by contiguous elements of x: {xi , xi+1 , ..., xj−1 }.
Let d ≤ n. From the definition of the convolution, we have:
y[i,i+d] = x[i,i+d+w] ⋆ c
So the convolution of the input of size n can be computed with ⌊n/d⌋ convolutions with inputs of
size d + w. The cost of the convolution goes down from O(n log(n)) to O(⌊n/d⌋(d + w) log(d +
w)) = O((n + w/d) log(d + w)). From this formula, we see that the optimal d is of the order of
w, to get the complexity O(n log(w)). This strategy allows us to speed up forward and backward
propagation. Tiling can also be used to reduce memory cost for temporary storage by not running all
the tiles in parallel (just the tiles which do run in parallel need their scratch space), at the potential
expense of parallelism or efficiency.
For the gradient accumulation, we cannot reuse this strategy, since it involves a larger convolution
between an input x of size n and a kernel z = ∂L
∂y of size n − w + 1. However, we have a similar
formula:
∂L
∂c
=
j
n−1
X
i=0
⌊n/d⌋−1 d−1
xj+i · zi =
X X
k=0
i=0
xj+i+kd · zi+kd +
n−1
X
xj+i · zi
i=d⌊n/d⌋
And so
∂L
∂c
⌊n/d⌋−1
=
X
x[dk,(d+1)k+w−1] ⋆ z[dk,(d+1)k] + x[d⌊n/d⌋,n] ⋆ z[d⌊n/d⌋,n−w+1]
k=0
We have a few other optimizations that are planned as well. Since much of the data we have is already available in registers or in shared memory, we are implementing our own in-place, in-register
transpose via recursive decomposition. The pointwise multiplications in the Fourier domain, especially with tiling, are rather small, so our own matrix multiplication routines integrated with the
rest of the convolution kernel code might win over cuBLAS, and prevent the need for multiple
CUDA kernel launches and their associated overhead. Finally, as mentioned earlier, bit reversal
portions can be eliminated with the FFT using DIF and the IFFT using DIT.
7
C ONCLUSION
To summarize, we achieve significant gains in CNNs using FFTs, with a cuFFT convolution implementation achieving 1.4 × −14.5× speedups over cuDNN for common sizes. In reaction to
cuFFT and cuBLAS limitations in the context of our specific application domain, we developed
our own FFT implementation, fbfft, which is more suited to deep learning problem sizes (large
batches, small feature planes). fbfft itself is ≥ 1.4× faster than cuFFT transforms for these problems of interest. For convolution, it is faster than the cuFFT as well, with a mean of 1.51× for sizes
that we wish to exploit.
Given our new efficient primitive for size 8-64 convolution, we are continuing work on bit twiddling,
transposition and pointwise multiplication optimizations, and continuing work on tiling to make the
computational advantage at that size apply to larger convolution problems. These will all allow for
reduced training time and use of ever larger and deeper CNNs.
11
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
R EFERENCES
Bergstra, James, Breuleux, Olivier, Bastien, Fr´ed´eric, Lamblin, Pascal, Pascanu, Razvan, Desjardins, Guillaume, Turian, Joseph, Warde-Farley, David, and Bengio, Yoshua. Theano: a CPU
and GPU math expression compiler. In Proceedings of the Python for Scientific Computing Conference (SciPy), June 2010. Oral Presentation.
Bluestein, Leo I. A linear filtering approach to the computation of discrete Fourier transform. Audio
and Electroacoustics, IEEE Transactions on, 18(4):451–455, December 1970. ISSN 0018-9278.
Burrus, C. Sidney. Fast fourier transforms, 2008. URL http://cnx.org/contents/
16e8e5e8-4f22-4b53-9cd6-a15b14f01ce4@5.6:16/Fast_Fourier_
Transforms_(6x9_V.
Chellapilla, Kumar, Puri, Sidd, and Simard, Patrice. High Performance Convolutional Neural Networks for Document Processing. In Lorette, Guy (ed.), Tenth International Workshop on Frontiers
in Handwriting Recognition, La Baule (France), October 2006. Universit´e de Rennes 1, Suvisoft.
URL https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00112631. http://www.suvisoft.com.
Chetlur, Sharan, Woolley, Cliff, Vandermersch, Philippe, Cohen, Jonathan, Tran, John, Catanzaro,
Bryan, and Shelhamer, Evan. cudnn: Efficient primitives for deep learning. CoRR, abs/1410.0759,
2014. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0759.
Collobert, R., Kavukcuoglu, K., and Farabet, C. Torch7: A matlab-like environment for machine
learning. In BigLearn, NIPS Workshop, 2011a.
Collobert, Ronan, Weston, Jason, Bottou, L´eon, Karlen, Michael, Kavukcuoglu, Koray, and Kuksa,
Pavel. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12:2493–2537,
November 2011b. ISSN 1532-4435. URL http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=
1953048.2078186.
Cooley, James W. and Tukey, John W. An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex fourier
series. Mathematics of computation, 19(90):297–301, 1965.
Garland, Michael, Le Grand, Scott, Nickolls, John, Anderson, Joshua, Hardwick, Jim, Morton,
Scott, Phillips, Everett, Zhang, Yao, and Volkov, Vasily. Parallel computing experiences with
cuda. IEEE Micro, 28(4):13–27, July 2008. ISSN 0272-1732. doi: 10.1109/MM.2008.57. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MM.2008.57.
Giles, Mike. Course on cuda programming on nvidia gpus, lecture 3, 2014.
//people.maths.ox.ac.uk/gilesm/cuda/lecs/lec3.pdf.
URL http:
Gunnels, John A., Gustavson, Fred G., Henry, Greg, and van de Geijn, Robert A. FLAME: formal
linear algebra methods environment. ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 27(4):422–455, 2001.
Irigoin, F. and Triolet, R. Supernode partitioning. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLANSIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’88, pp. 319–329, New
York, NY, USA, 1988. ACM. ISBN 0-89791-252-7. doi: 10.1145/73560.73588. URL http:
//doi.acm.org/10.1145/73560.73588.
Jia, Yangqing, Shelhamer, Evan, Donahue, Jeff, Karayev, Sergey, Long, Jonathan, Girshick, Ross,
Guadarrama, Sergio, and Darrell, Trevor. Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5093, 2014.
Krizhevsky, Alex.
convnet2/.
cuda-convnet2, 2014.
URL https://code.google.com/p/cuda-
Krizhevsky, Alex, Sutskever, Ilya, and Hinton, Geoffrey E. Imagenet classification with deep
convolutional neural networks. In Pereira, F., Burges, C.J.C., Bottou, L., and Weinberger,
K.Q. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pp. 1097–1105. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper/4824-imagenetclassification-with-deep-convolutional-neural-networks.pdf.
12
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
Mathieu, Micha¨el, Henaff, Mikael, and LeCun, Yann. Fast training of convolutional networks
through ffts. CoRR, abs/1312.5851, 2013. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5851.
Ragan-Kelley, Jonathan, Barnes, Connelly, Adams, Andrew, Paris, Sylvain, Durand, Fr´edo, and
Amarasinghe, Saman P. Halide: a language and compiler for optimizing parallelism, locality,
and recomputation in image processing pipelines. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’13, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-19, 2013, pp.
519–530, 2013. doi: 10.1145/2462156.2462176. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/
2462156.2462176.
Ruetsch, Greg and Micikevicius, Paulius. Optimizing matrix transpose in cuda. Technical report,
NVIDIA Corp., January 2009.
Sermanet, Pierre, Eigen, David, Zhang, Xiang, Mathieu, Michael, Fergus, Rob, and LeCun, Yann.
Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization and detection using convolutional networks. In
International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2014). CBLS, April 2014. URL
http://openreview.net/document/d332e77d-459a-4af8-b3ed-55ba.
Shin, Jaewook, Hall, Mary W., Chame, Jacqueline, Chen, Chun, Fischer, Paul F., and Hovland,
Paul D. Speeding up nek5000 with autotuning and specialization. In Proceedings of the 24th
ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, ICS ’10, pp. 253–262, New York, NY, USA,
2010. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-0018-6.
Valiant, Leslie G. A bridging model for parallel computation. Commun. ACM, 33(8):103–111,
August 1990. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/79173.79181. URL http://doi.acm.org/
10.1145/79173.79181.
Volkov, V. Better performance at lower occupancy. In GPU Technology Conference, 2010. URL
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/˜volkov/volkov10-GTC.pdf.
13
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
8
8.1
S UPPLEMENT
CU FFT
C ONVOLUTION P ERFORMANCE B REAKDOWN
We show a breakdown of cuFFT convolution performance for the steps indicated in Table 1. The
timings do not add up to 100% of the reported performance in the previous table because we do not
report additional copies needed for zero-padding here. We also enforce force extra synchronizations
to isolate the contribution of each operation. Abstracting from these details, the FFT and IFFT take
up a significant amount of compute resources, which we address in Section 5.
Table 5: cuFFT convolution performance breakdown (K40m, ms)
LAYER
L1
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L2
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L3
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L4
fprop
bprop
accGrad
L5
fprop
bprop
accGrad
FFT A
TRANS. A
FFT B
TRANS. B
CGEMM
TRANS. C
IFFT C
0.86
0.86
1.14
0.24
0.24
0.32
1.13
34.55
34.60
0.32
10.26
10.26
15.13
12.62
12.37
12.67
0.39
0.26
36.46
1.19
0.91
2.99
2.99
5.94
0.98
0.98
2.04
5.91
5.92
5.93
2.03
2.03
2.02
8.92
8.85
8.38
1.67
1.67
0.83
6.24
6.23
3.15
3.07
3.08
3.07
0.89
0.89
0.89
3.08
3.07
3.06
0.89
0.90
0.89
4.40
4.05
4.03
0.87
0.86
0.87
3.49
3.48
3.48
0.84
0.83
0.84
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.24
0.24
0.24
1.21
1.13
1.10
0.24
0.23
0.24
0.95
0.94
0.95
7.07
7.07
2.40
1.58
1.59
0.51
2.39
2.40
2.38
0.51
0.51
0.52
6.23
5.59
6.18
0.50
0.51
1.54
2.54
2.54
7.51
In the particular case of L1, the FFTs take more than 50% of the runtime. This is due to the wasteful
interpolation of the kernel tensor from a 11 × 11 up to 128 × 128, which is the minimal size to
compute the FFT of the input array without interpolation loss. In such cases, the tiling strategy we
are developing (see section 6) will result in large additional performance gains.
8.2
FFT : D ECIMATION
IN
T IME VS F REQUENCY
A Fourier transform projects R and C-valued functions onto a harmonic orthogonal basis. The
discrete Fourier transform of a vector {xk }, k ∈ [0, n − 1] is the vector:

{Xk } = 
n−1
X
j=0

xj wnkj  , k ∈ [0, n − 1]
where wnj = e−2πij/n is the j th n-root of unity. The traditional radix-2 Cooley-Tukey algorithm
recursively decomposes the computation between an odd and even part:

{Xk } = 
(n−1)/2
(n−1)/2
X
X
j=0
xj wnk(2j) +
j=0
14

x2j+1 wnk(2j+1)  , k ∈ [1, n]
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
Figure 9: DIT output ordered (left); DIF input ordered (right) (Burrus (2008))
This decomposition is called decimation in time (DIT). An alternate decomposition performs decimation in frequency (DIF):


(n−1)/2
n
X
X
xj wnkj  , k ∈ [1, n]
xj wnkj +
{Xk } = 
j=0
j=(n−1)/2
When n is a power of 2, both decimations recursively decompose into a perfectly balanced tree and
take advantage of the symmetry properties of the roots of unity. The dataflow graph for the radix-2
FFT has a butterfly shape and is a good way of visualizing the computations. There is a symmetry
between DIT and DIF in both the order of operations applied and in whether the input or the output
order is shuffled (Figure 9).
8.3
GPU P ROGRAMMING
There are a variety of references available that describe CUDA and NVIDIA’s various GPU architectures (Garland et al. (2008)) which we won’t discuss in detail, but the implementation of fbfft very
much depends upon specifics of the Kepler GPU architecture.
NVIDIA GPUs execute code at the granularity of a warp which is defined as a set of 32 threads
in all existing architectures; each thread is assigned a lane within the warp. These threads execute
in a SIMT (single instruction, multiple thread) fashion, meaning that a warp is an atomic unit of
execution. It holds a single program counter (PC) and can thus only execute a single instruction
at a time across all of its threads. Collections of warps are brought together in blocks or CTAs,
which together share a region of fast shared memory resident on chip. Blocks themselves can only
exchange data via much slower global memory, resident on the GPU or in the host CPU’s address
space.
Individual threads within a warp are free to take divergent paths, but since a single PC is present,
each branch in the execution will be serialized. Threads that aren’t participating in the branch in
question are disabled. In other words, if all 32 threads were to take divergent code paths, we would
obtain only 1/32× of the computational efficiency.
Divergent code paths are hard to avoid, but the NVIDIA instruction set has means to reduce their
cost (Giles (2014)). One is with predicated instructions, which are used for small branches, in which
all warp threads execute both parts of the branch, with non-participating threads having no side
effects.
Block threads have access to a register file, with up to 255 registers per thread for Kepler. Registers
are allocated statically by the CUDA compiler. An important performance factor when writing
CUDA kernels is that data should be kept in registers as much as possible to avoid communications.
15
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2015
Registers in CUDA are “addressable”: it is possible to declare a static array within registers and
operate on its elements. The limitation is that all addressing should be performed using statically
determined constants so the compiler can translate these accesses to a register number known at
compile time. Indirect addressing is also supported but results in copies to a local region within
global memory, which essentially constitutes register spilling. Even with the presence of caches,
using local memory usually comes with a performance hit.11 As a consequence, we design our
kernels using aggressive inlining, template parameters and unrolling directives to make all register
accesses statically addressable.
The Kepler architecture introduced specialized shuffle instructions to exchange data between registers within a warp synchronously, which avoids round-trips to shared or global memory. Interestingly, these shuffle instructions allow the dynamic indexing of an array held in registers, as long as
the array is distributed in a cyclic fashion across registers in each thread within a warp.
float arr[3];
...
// This simulates a linear array float realArr[96]:
// arr[0] holds elements 0-31 (lane i holds element i)
// arr[1] holds elements 32-63 (lane i holds element 32 + i)
// arr[2] holds elements 64-95 (lane i holds element 64 + i)
// Example: all warp threads read value held at realArr[34]
float val = __shfl(arr[1], 2); // ‘1‘ must be statically known
// ‘2‘ can be dynamic
Many warps run in parallel and can be switched by the GPU hardware at each cycle. When enough
parallelism is available (measured in occupancy of the GPU as a first approximation), long latency
operations are hidden thanks to fast context switching. Registers and shared memory come in finite
quantities on each GPU compute multiprocessor. These limited resources are partitioned by the
compiler and the hardware amongst computations at the level of a CUDA kernel. Increased usage
of registers or of shared memory can reduce GPU occupancy, which limits the ability to hide long
latency operations. Reduced occupancy does not necessarily result in performance loss (Volkov
(2010)). There are often non-obvious performance tradeoffs in increasing or decreasing threads per
block, shared memory per block or registers per thread that are hard to discover. This problem is
one of the many reasons why designing a one-size-fits-all implementation that aims to be efficient
for any problem is difficult.
11
There are bleeding edge cases where a little local memory consumption helps performance; for instance,
when restricting the number of registers per thread to increase occupancy.
16